Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The decree of God about the permission of sin does not infringe the liberty of man's will. For sin does not follow the decree by a necessity of co-action or compulsion, which indeed would destroy human liberty; but by a necessity of infallibility, which is very consistent with the decree. It is sufficient unto human liberty, or the freedom of man's will, that a man act without all constraint, and out of choice. Now, this is not taken away by the decree. Men sin as freely as if there were no decree, and yet as infallibly as if there were no liberty. And men sin, not to fulfill God's decree, which is hidden from them, but to serve and gratify their vile lusts and corrupt affections.
The Jews, so far as their own free agency was concerned, might have broken Christ's bones; yet in reality it was not possible for them to have done so, for it was written, "A bone of Him shall not be broken," (Psalms 34:20; John 19:36). God's decree does not take away man's liberty; and in the fall Adam freely exercised the natural inclinations of his will.
So, yes, of course God knows. God knows because He has ordained (decreed) the actuality. How else would God infallibly know?
God is the primary efficient cause of man’s actions. Man is the secondary efficient cause of his actions. Therefore, there are two efficient causes of human actions. Man’s "free will" (the liberty of spontaneity) piggybacks on the free will of God.
Two propositions result from this:
1. Adam ate the apple of his own free will.
2. God decreed that Adam would eat the apple of his own free will.
Adam was able to sin and able not to sin, but he did not yet have a sin nature. This is quite important: His nature was not neutral. There was nothing in his nature that in any way prompted him to sin; rather, his nature was righteous and he walked in righteous. He was not yet glorified however and Adam had the capability of sinning (and did), but we must not be mistaken about what this meant for him.
This did not mean that Adam was confronted with all sorts of temptations to sin or situations in which he had to choose not to sin before his encounter with the devil: mutable, earthy, Adam walked in righteousness, according to his nature, until he was confronted with Satan's temptation and succumbed. In fact all sin was comprehended in this sin, that is, that Adam sinned in every way by sinning in this way.
God does not know this particular evil as merely a possible evil, but as an actual evil because He decreed it to be so. It is not the case that God is the efficient cause and Adam is the instrumental cause of Adam’s sin. Both Adam and God are the efficient causes of Adam’s eating of the apple. Adam is not the instrument of God’s sinful action. Rather God is the efficient cause of Adam's free action (a freedom which is good, so established by a perfectly good God's decree), which results in the sin of Adam.
No doubt it may then be asked, If there are two efficient causes of Adam’s eating the apple, why is the primary efficient cause (God) not responsible for the sin, while the secondary efficient cause (Adam) is responsible for the sin?
The proper answer follows:
The motive which God has in actively permitting sin and the motive which man has in committing sin are radically different. Many are deceived in these issues because they fail to consider that God wills righteously those things which men do wickedly.
But we must always remind ourselves that God contracts no defilement or criminality from such agency. God is just in all His ways, and holy in all His works. While everything that occurs in God’s universe finds its account in God's positive ordering and active concurrence, yet the moral quality of the deed, considered in itself, is rooted in the moral character of the subordinate agent (Adam), acting in the circumstances and under the motives operative in each instance. God is not the author (the doer) of sin. Sin is embraced in His ordaining; it is accomplished in His providence. Yet Adam's sin and all sin is embraced in His decree and effected in His providence in such a way as to ensure that blame and guilt attach to the perpetrators of wrong and to them alone.
Blame attaches to actions, and actions are characterized by intentions. The truth of propositions 1 and 2 above includes the fact that Adam and God perform quite different actions:
1. Adam intentionally eats a fruit; God does not eat a fruit.
2. Adam knowingly breaks a divine command; God does not break one of His own commands.
3. God commanded that Adam should not eat the fruit; God did not command that He should not ordain (decree) that Adam should eat the fruit.
A clear biblical locus classicus for this sort of dual agency is the story of Joseph in Genesis... where Joseph says, “you intended it for evil, but God intended it for good."
Even if it cannot be shown how it is that God and man can be the cause of free actions, it does not follow that it is a contradiction. Moreso, per His decree to establish the liberty of spontaneity, God is required to cause free actions. God does not simply cause the existence of free will apart from the actions of free will. God’s causing (necessarily or freely or contingently) the acts of free will is God’s providential sustaining of human free will (liberty of spontaneity). This is what it means by man’s free will piggybacks on God’s free will.
Nor is it the case that God’s free will overrides man’s free will. God does not overpower or compete with man’s free will. Again, the existence of human free will depends on God’s causing not just the fact of free will, but the acts of free will. That is how God sustains free will. For if God did not do so, humans would not be free creatures. God wills sinful actions on the part of humans conditionally in order to attain the good of free will.
At this point I can hear the canards in the TOL aisles. “God is a despot!” Instead of emotionalism and appeals to the crowd for effect, let’s think a wee bit more about this. While God’s sovereignty is universal and absolute, it is not the sovereignty of blind power, instead that power is coupled with God’s infinite wisdom, love, and holiness. When this doctrine is understood properly, it is reassuring and comforting. Would we prefer to have our affairs in the infinite power, love, and holiness of God’s hands or have our lives left to chance, fate, irrevocable natural law, or our own short-sighted and perverted selves? "We ourselves have had the sentence of death within ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the dead," (2 Corinthians 1:9).
Persons who reject God's sovereignty should seriously consider what alternatives they have left.
The open theist's idea which assumes that the serious intentions of God in some way and in some cases can at least be defeated, and that man, who is not only a creature but a sinful creature, can exercise veto power over the plans of Almighty God, is in striking contrast with the Scriptural idea of His immeasurable exaltation by which God is removed from all the weaknesses of humanity. That the plans of men are not always executed is due to a lack of power, or a lack of wisdom; but since God is unlimited in these and all other resources, no unforeseen emergencies can arise, and to Him the causes for change have no existence. To suppose that God’s plans fail and that God strives to no effect, is to reduce God to the level of His creatures. Power without knowledge is dangerous. Knowledge without power is weak. God is neither dangerous nor weak.
Since God's knowledge of all actualities is infallibly complete, God knows the destiny of every person, not merely before the person has made his choice in this life, but from eternity. And since God knows their destiny equally vividly to creating, and proceeds to create, it is clear that both the saved and the lost fulfill God’s plan for them; for if He did not plan that any particular ones should be lost, God could at least refrain from creating the lost.
The Arminian, Romanist, and openist arguments, if they were valid, would disprove both God's foreknowing and ordaining. And since they prove too much I must conclude that they prove nothing at all.
AMR
The Jews, so far as their own free agency was concerned, might have broken Christ's bones; yet in reality it was not possible for them to have done so, for it was written, "A bone of Him shall not be broken," (Psalms 34:20; John 19:36). God's decree does not take away man's liberty; and in the fall Adam freely exercised the natural inclinations of his will.
So, yes, of course God knows. God knows because He has ordained (decreed) the actuality. How else would God infallibly know?
God is the primary efficient cause of man’s actions. Man is the secondary efficient cause of his actions. Therefore, there are two efficient causes of human actions. Man’s "free will" (the liberty of spontaneity) piggybacks on the free will of God.
Two propositions result from this:
1. Adam ate the apple of his own free will.
2. God decreed that Adam would eat the apple of his own free will.
Adam was able to sin and able not to sin, but he did not yet have a sin nature. This is quite important: His nature was not neutral. There was nothing in his nature that in any way prompted him to sin; rather, his nature was righteous and he walked in righteous. He was not yet glorified however and Adam had the capability of sinning (and did), but we must not be mistaken about what this meant for him.
This did not mean that Adam was confronted with all sorts of temptations to sin or situations in which he had to choose not to sin before his encounter with the devil: mutable, earthy, Adam walked in righteousness, according to his nature, until he was confronted with Satan's temptation and succumbed. In fact all sin was comprehended in this sin, that is, that Adam sinned in every way by sinning in this way.
God does not know this particular evil as merely a possible evil, but as an actual evil because He decreed it to be so. It is not the case that God is the efficient cause and Adam is the instrumental cause of Adam’s sin. Both Adam and God are the efficient causes of Adam’s eating of the apple. Adam is not the instrument of God’s sinful action. Rather God is the efficient cause of Adam's free action (a freedom which is good, so established by a perfectly good God's decree), which results in the sin of Adam.
No doubt it may then be asked, If there are two efficient causes of Adam’s eating the apple, why is the primary efficient cause (God) not responsible for the sin, while the secondary efficient cause (Adam) is responsible for the sin?
The proper answer follows:
The motive which God has in actively permitting sin and the motive which man has in committing sin are radically different. Many are deceived in these issues because they fail to consider that God wills righteously those things which men do wickedly.
But we must always remind ourselves that God contracts no defilement or criminality from such agency. God is just in all His ways, and holy in all His works. While everything that occurs in God’s universe finds its account in God's positive ordering and active concurrence, yet the moral quality of the deed, considered in itself, is rooted in the moral character of the subordinate agent (Adam), acting in the circumstances and under the motives operative in each instance. God is not the author (the doer) of sin. Sin is embraced in His ordaining; it is accomplished in His providence. Yet Adam's sin and all sin is embraced in His decree and effected in His providence in such a way as to ensure that blame and guilt attach to the perpetrators of wrong and to them alone.
Blame attaches to actions, and actions are characterized by intentions. The truth of propositions 1 and 2 above includes the fact that Adam and God perform quite different actions:
1. Adam intentionally eats a fruit; God does not eat a fruit.
2. Adam knowingly breaks a divine command; God does not break one of His own commands.
3. God commanded that Adam should not eat the fruit; God did not command that He should not ordain (decree) that Adam should eat the fruit.
A clear biblical locus classicus for this sort of dual agency is the story of Joseph in Genesis... where Joseph says, “you intended it for evil, but God intended it for good."
Even if it cannot be shown how it is that God and man can be the cause of free actions, it does not follow that it is a contradiction. Moreso, per His decree to establish the liberty of spontaneity, God is required to cause free actions. God does not simply cause the existence of free will apart from the actions of free will. God’s causing (necessarily or freely or contingently) the acts of free will is God’s providential sustaining of human free will (liberty of spontaneity). This is what it means by man’s free will piggybacks on God’s free will.
Nor is it the case that God’s free will overrides man’s free will. God does not overpower or compete with man’s free will. Again, the existence of human free will depends on God’s causing not just the fact of free will, but the acts of free will. That is how God sustains free will. For if God did not do so, humans would not be free creatures. God wills sinful actions on the part of humans conditionally in order to attain the good of free will.
At this point I can hear the canards in the TOL aisles. “God is a despot!” Instead of emotionalism and appeals to the crowd for effect, let’s think a wee bit more about this. While God’s sovereignty is universal and absolute, it is not the sovereignty of blind power, instead that power is coupled with God’s infinite wisdom, love, and holiness. When this doctrine is understood properly, it is reassuring and comforting. Would we prefer to have our affairs in the infinite power, love, and holiness of God’s hands or have our lives left to chance, fate, irrevocable natural law, or our own short-sighted and perverted selves? "We ourselves have had the sentence of death within ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the dead," (2 Corinthians 1:9).
Persons who reject God's sovereignty should seriously consider what alternatives they have left.
The open theist's idea which assumes that the serious intentions of God in some way and in some cases can at least be defeated, and that man, who is not only a creature but a sinful creature, can exercise veto power over the plans of Almighty God, is in striking contrast with the Scriptural idea of His immeasurable exaltation by which God is removed from all the weaknesses of humanity. That the plans of men are not always executed is due to a lack of power, or a lack of wisdom; but since God is unlimited in these and all other resources, no unforeseen emergencies can arise, and to Him the causes for change have no existence. To suppose that God’s plans fail and that God strives to no effect, is to reduce God to the level of His creatures. Power without knowledge is dangerous. Knowledge without power is weak. God is neither dangerous nor weak.
Since God's knowledge of all actualities is infallibly complete, God knows the destiny of every person, not merely before the person has made his choice in this life, but from eternity. And since God knows their destiny equally vividly to creating, and proceeds to create, it is clear that both the saved and the lost fulfill God’s plan for them; for if He did not plan that any particular ones should be lost, God could at least refrain from creating the lost.
The Arminian, Romanist, and openist arguments, if they were valid, would disprove both God's foreknowing and ordaining. And since they prove too much I must conclude that they prove nothing at all.
AMR